The UK’s early leverage in the F-35 programme has diminished as other buyers outpace Britain on fleet size and use, witnesses told the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee during a 28 October session on the UK’s future relationship with the United States.
The hearing featured Dr Sophy Antrobus of the Royal Aeronautical Society and King’s College London, and Dr Justin Bronk of the Royal United Services Institute.
Dr Antrobus said the UK’s unique tier-one status applied only to the now-completed development phase. “We’re equal partners now in the production and in-service phases,” she noted, while stressing that the early buy-in still carries weight. The UK embedded expertise early and today “15% of F-35 aircraft are produced in this country,” she said, citing National Audit Office figures that estimate £22 billion in industrial benefits against £11 billion in Ministry of Defence spending. She added that within Joint Program Office governance the UK remains the first non-US voice in partner voting sequences.
On accountability for cost and schedule, Antrobus pointed to US oversight challenges. “In 2024 none of the aircraft were delivered on time. The average delay was 238 days,” she said, referencing a US Government Accountability Office report. “The US government has difficulty holding the program to account. The UK is going to be no more influential than them in that case.” She argued the UK’s 38 Ministry of Defence personnel embedded in the Joint Program Office are its most effective lever of influence.
Bronk backed the view that early UK status conferred access, but said Britain’s practical standing has eroded relative to partners that bought more jets and fly them harder. “Our participation in a lot of practical areas has fallen significantly short of where our initial program commitments were,” he said.
He contrasted the UK’s roughly 40 aircraft in service and lower flying rates with Australia’s 72 F-35s and higher sortie generation, adding that Tokyo and several European partners also now field larger fleets.
Even so, Bronk highlighted a sensitive area where the UK retains privileged access alongside the United States and Australia. Through the Australian Canadian UK Reprogramming Lab, London can build bespoke mission data loads and electronic warfare files to a degree not available to most other partners.
“There is very significant differentiation in some of the most sensitive areas of the weapon system,” he said, while cautioning that Australia is “increasingly significantly competing with the UK for most preferred partner spot” given Indo-Pacific priorities and operational tempo.
Doesn’t seem to have helped us get our weapons onboard. Australia of course very much uses what the US uses, but that and buying more aircraft would unlike them disadvantage us in our own industry. Not sure that was what was visualised when we originally committed to this programme as Tier 1. Bit of a rock and a hard place accordingly between Typhoon and Tempest preferences.
I never tire of looking at the American reserve air force in hibernation at the AMARG regeneration group facility so it an d look at the AMARG inventory. then . look for the navy inactive maintenance facilities and see what they have for regeneration for the navy um not EU fair with the world underwater but can retired submarines be reactivated?
Submarines are often retired either due to being worn out, beyond economic repair or the nuclear fuel is all spent requiring an extremely expensive and complex refuel. It’s often more economical to retire the unit and replace with a more advanced successor.
as the only tier one nation left in the project when production began, the UK should have been at the front of the queue for delivery of orders this is typical of the Americans. and the UK must make sure they know it is up to us as to what the final order will be less than 148 will see ithe UA lose out in revenue and they won like it but hey, shit happens.
The UK bought in early and benefit from building a proportion of these aircraft. The UK will continue to purchase but emhasis has shifted to the next british led aircraft disign and production plus the use of drones (we hope) happpening relatively soon. The Americans have not been that helpful with incorporating our missiles etc. so they will get a short term gain here which will supply decent weapons to our NATO allies as well as us. Don’t see the issue actually.
Unfortunately, the RAF are by most account lukewarm on further Typhoon purchases, preferring to go for the more capable F-35A. They need to pick a lane – either go for more Typhoons, or go for more F-35As.
Perhaps the RAF think a mix of close combat Typhoon and stand-off F35A is the best combo for a hot war situation. They already have approx 100 Typhoon so say 50 F35A would be enough.
But that of course would need Rachel from Accounts to make new money available. Oh look, a flying pig.
I don’t think there is a cats chance in hell of the RAF getting 50 more of anything. Just pray for Tempest and hope we buy more than two a year.
We really must stop using this ‘Rachel from accounts’.epithet, it’s sexist and belittling. We have our first female Chancellor, great, she can’t do any worse than Gordon, Phil or Kwasi from accounts, surely?
It is a contrived Tory smear, lapped up and promulgated by the dull Tory tabloids. Here on UKDJ, we should.be a cut above that kind of Trump-like polemic.
🤣
It’s almost a annoying as the constant ‘Blow to Rachel Reeves’ headlines.
the girl in accounts is out of her depth like the rest of the starmer circus
Well said, we can disagree with her policies without low level sexist language, although I do remember a certain defence secretary and chancellor being called spreadsheet Hammond.. but that had far less negative connotations.
To be honest I think every chancellor we have had has in the past 25 years has essentially been straitjacketed by a toxic triad of treasury orthodoxy, unrealistic electoral promises and out of control bond markets… until we manage all three of those our nation is essentially buggered because every chancellor is essentially faced with the same slow death decisions and if they try to step out by either raising taxes to reduce debt, spending to develop the economy, investing to save in the long term or cutting to the bone they get hit by one of the above.
Christ, I had to look up some of those words, do you use words like that in real life ?
You must be ever so well edumacated and Posh.
Wish I knew words like “promulgated and Epithet and polemic”. Might have to try using posh words more often on here myself !
the girl in accounts is out of her depth like the rest of the starmer circus
Oh and the last lot did so many favours for defence during their fourteen years of missed opportunity ( and total mismanagement ) to show us how a country with so much potential as UK PLC could have been run? I must have been serving in a different branch of the MOD 🇬🇧👎
Say Hayabusa 3 times quickly 0)
You don’t have to be too altruistic though!
How exactly is it sexist? If it was “Steve from accounts” would it be misandrist?
Her policies have been economically illiterate and defence funding is / will suffer as a result. It would be sexist not to subject her to criticism that a male enacting these policies would be equally subject to. George Osborne was portrayed by the left wing media as the devil incarnate. Those in glass houses and all that.
Do we see similar labels applied to other recent chancellors, despite similarly poor economic policy?
You mean like Dishy Rishi? Not so much for the poor economic policy, but objectifying the man for his looks and how he dresses seems decidedly more sexist saying the Chancellor is “from Accounts”.
Politicians attract labels and derogatory , regardless of their gender. People weren’t playing “ding dong the witch is dead” when Thatcher died because she was a woman; Theresa May’s being a woman was inconsequential to her running through the fields of wheat. Rachel Reeves would be better off being in accounting than No 11, not because of her genitalia, but because she’s failing miserably at heading the Treasury.
If they were the first male chancellor and also the first to receive this belittling name I think you’d see the issue.
She can’t do any worse ? She is doing worse , much worse .
I would say that’s exactly their goal. A small core of upgraded Typhoons pushing through into the 2040s and perhaps beyond, a chunk of the fleet being F-35A and F-35B, and further core of Tempest fighters forming the backbone of the fleet and eventually replacing those upgraded Typhoons.
I’ve said before that tie UK would benefit from a first dibs option to purchase any major piece of kit that the Americans are retiring. cheaper technologically up to date and most importantly already built.
That just doesn’t add up. If the Americans are retiring it, its either because they don’t think they need it anymore, or its worn out. They stockpile retired gear because they’ve got the space and conditions to do so cheaply, and because they operate enough to have spares to bring them back into service. In either case, that equipment is not going to be “technologically up to date”.
The UK buying that kit makes very little sense; we don’t have the spares to sustain them, the US would no longer be producing the spares so its a very finite supply to purchase, and our biggest issues currently are manpower and funding (I know I know, those are always issues; its just that they’ve very rarely been this acute)
delays ? were they building them on the Clyde? 😁😁I thought it was an elephant(dumbo).
More capable? Does it fire any of our missiles?
Yes. It can fire the ASRAAM. It can also use our Paveway variant, though that’s a guided bomb, not a missile.
Anyhow, just because it doesn’t use British missile doesn’t make it less capable than the Typhoon. The AMRAAM/Lighting combo is far more potent than the Meteor/Typhoon equivalent. Stealth is a gamechanger.
As the recent exercise with the Indian air forces 4 th generation types apparently confirmed- and I’m not refering to the Jaguar although it was great to see them still being flown. On one point we may differ however and that is it was the combination of stealth, plus ASRAAM plus AMRAAM . AMRAAM may not quiet have the reach of Meteor , which is coming, but ours are exactly the same missile as that with which the US F35, both A and B are equipped and the US have no plans apparently to buy Meteor so it must work for them.
The Americans aren’t altogether convinced of the AMRAAMs performance, at least when referring to external carriage. It’s more that their production and industry capability has been degraded so that they’re struggling to quickly field the replacement AIM-260, and have resorted to strapping naval interceptor missiles to their Hornets.
Compare that with China, and look at just how fast they’re iterating. They’ve clearly surpassed the AMRAAM, and are moving beyond it at pace.
That said, when stealth enters the picture, maximum range becomes somewhat meaningless. Seeker technology is suddenly a greater priority.
or take off from a carrier that cannot operate it
Just noted, if you were referring directly to the F-35A variant in your comment, I’m unsure as to whether it can use the ASRAAM and Paveway, or if it’s limited to purely American equivalents.
The rate of delivery seems to be glacial (at least 13 years to deliver 48 aircraft?), but I understand that the UK slowed things down by waiting for Block 4 software (if I have the right terminology).
That’s what I believe has been implied yes, not sure if there has ever been official confirmation.
the USAF got their f 35′ quickly enough but that’s the Americans for you.
It did and it provided a wonderful excuse not to fund F35B properly either!
It is interesting that RAF for all their chest puffing about being the only European airforce that can do ensuing deployments cannot operate the frames we have at a decent intensity.
If Block IV was delivered on time (or ever) would that have increased the UK buy rate? Possibly another batch would be on order already?
If the US were working with us and putting aside their own selfish interests there would have probabl;y been twice as many F35s built (at least) with F35 being the backbone of the NATO fleet. Perhaps Typhoon would have been sold to Ukraine allowing them to sort out their own air superiority issues or Putin would never have never invaded in the first place. This is why we need to control our own tech future. The US are better at marketing and we are better at producing something useful.
It is true that we now we will have a smaller F 35 fleet than several nations including the Aussies 72, but we will almost certainly reach or exceed that figure even with the projected diminished buy down from 138. At least eighty aircraft seems probable
What a surprise. Slow deiveries? WOW!
Reality is that the RAF’s fast jet combat aircraft budget only stretches to 6 or 7 new aircraft a year. (The F’35Bs are all paid for by the RAF, the RN pays nothing). So the slow procurement rate is basically dictated by lack of funds as much as by LM’s travails.
Those who wish for more Typhoons or F-35As need to clock that there is no money for more of either until the weary F-35B programme completes. There are still 23 F-35Bs outstanding, which will probably take until 2029 to fulfill. Then the 12 x F-35As will start arriving, maybe in 2030 and probably spread over 3 years. Then all resources will be piled into Tempest.
Of course if the DIP comes up with more m9ney, that might speed up a bit, but I don’t think FJCAs are high on the MOD’s ‘transformation’ agenda
I never tire of looking at the American reserve air force in hibernation at the AMARG regeneration group facility so it an d look at the AMARG inventory. then . look for the navy inactive maintenance facilities and see what they have for regeneration for the navy um not EU fair with the world underwater but can retired submarines be reactivated?
OK,
Having re-read it a few times, I think I can understand what you wrote.
And my answer is,
43 plus a few in the field but mostly the green ones.
Hi Andy… the US has essentially got rid the vast majority of its navy reserve as it’s decided it was essentially pointless.. it has spent about 6 billion to keep up to 51 mixed ships in a usable reserve.. but almost all of the reserves are held in conditions D,X,Y which means they are simply awaiting disposal..
nuclear submarines cannot under any circumstances be recommissioned. Once a nuclear reactor is decommissioned it’s done.
For smart guy Justin Bronk some time comes out with alot of shit.
As is pointed out the US has no more weight than anyone else with Lockheed Martin. We could have doubled our F35 purchase and we would have the same amount of weight with partners which is zero. Lockheed is not intentionally screwing stuff up or holding back for more money it’s just out of its depth. It’s an aerospace company with some software development aspirations while the F35 is software with wings. No additional buys from the F35 will fix that problem.
Justin what is 0x0
dunno I use Rachel reeves ‘ calculator and its crap
Hug, kiss, hug? 😉
To be honest I think the UK needs to lever the hell out of its carriers.. it’s a strategic asset beyond any western nation other than the U.S. has. The carriers can secure our air defences ( it’s impossible to find and kill the carrier hiding within 700 miles of UK waters so securing our air defence), allow us to strategically threaten Russia with a force that can punch out its northern bastion, secure any sealane we wish and essentially deliver a fifth gear anywhere on the globe.. that is a profound capability we seem hell bent on crippling with petty politic and penny pinching.
The reality is everyone knows you could but 4 squadrons of F35bs on an Elizabeth.. it’s first operational captain and then commanding officer of the battlegroup was clear you could operate it with a mixed airwing of 70 aircraft. We also know that although not always available the maximum possible surge with time would allow for 2 carriers to operate together for a short time. That means the UK spent 6.6 billion dollars to allow a potential for putting 6-8 squadron’sof 5th generation aircraft to sea and to park them off the cost of an enemy.. even on a normal day with only one carrier at streatch it could deliver 4 squadrons.. normal operations was 3 squadrons… so what did we do with that… got 2 squadrons of F35bs slowly had a plan work our way up to three and then got distracted and purchased 12 F35A before we even got to three…and then made sure our OCU could not operate from the carriers…we also went cheap on our AEW, did not invests in half the weapons we could get for the F35b clever very clever..
The reality is with our carrier force we should have at minimum 4 squadrons of F35bs and really aim for 5-6 + the OCU.. essentially the UK could threaten any and all possible enemies with an overwhelming force or protect at least 4 squadrons by having them sit on a carrier hiding in the sea. We could also get off our high horse and buy some of the available weapons for the F35b… they are out there GBU-32 for a 1000lb or 2000Ib strike options, GBU 39 for a 100km+ strike option and AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon for 140km stand off strikes and we should have a contract inplace so as soon as the block 4 upgrade is complete we have JSMs ready to put on the F35Bs.. as that will fully complete the naval and long range land strike option.. in-fact they should work to integrate JSM onto the typhoons as well as it will massively increase their maritime strike capabilities… because the next major war we fight.. like every other major war will essentially be decided by who controls the seas.
The point of being a Tier 1 development partner was to influence the development process, ensure access to the relevant source code and gain some work-share commensurate with the contribution to development costs. That’s now done. ‘Influence’ from this point forward seems like a woolier concept.
The small buy and purchase rate is now a problem. The UK will end up the 3rd or 4th largest F-35 operator in Europe at this rate.
The key in the article remains the mention of the Australia, Canada, UK Reprogramming Laboratory at Elgin, Florida.
Our contribution is No 80 Squadron RAF, and the Aussies have No 80 Squadron RAAF.
A pretty standard bye product of 5 Eyes amongst Anglo nations.
F35 numbers still to low due to various factors, but, hey! When was HMG interested in forces size over industrial benefits?